There is currently a dispute about whether to hold election for the National Assembly through Single Transferable Vote system or majority system. The left alliance says Single Transferable Vote system is unconstitutional. What do you say?
First, we have to look at the composition of National Assembly. Article 86 of the Constitution says it will be formed through an electoral college that includes members of provincial assemblies, chiefs and deputy chiefs of rural municipalities and mayors and deputy mayors of municipalities.
Single Transferable Vote system is used more and is more popular for an institution to be selected by an electoral college if we look at the constitutional practice in other countries.
Second, proportionality and inclusion are the integral parts of our Constitution if we look at the National Assembly or other parts of the Constitution. There are three main kinds of electoral systems practiced across the world including majority, proportional and mixed. There are three kinds of proportional representation (PR) system including List Proportional, Single Transferable Vote system and Mixed Member Proportional.
I see lack of understanding in people. Single Transferable Vote system is an integral part of PR system. It is appropriate to use Single Transferable Vote system in National Assembly also due to this reason.
Third, we take the National Assembly as an institution that can play the role of a watchdog. Inclusion of every kind of persons in that, therefore, is necessary and natural as a result. There is a very low chance of votes being wasted in the Single Transferable Vote system. The extra votes of the candidates who get more than certain necessary numbers are transferred to the other candidates respectively. This is a system that guarantees representation of everybody and votes are also not wasted here.
I feel that Single Transferable Vote system is mandatory for formation of the National Assembly due to these three reasons.
Is the ordinance that the government sent to the President to form the National Assembly through Single Transferable Vote system constitutional or unconstitutional?
It is absolutely constitutional. Our Constitutional does not give much rights to the President who has to carry out all the duties according to advice and consent of the council of ministers. The President can exercise some inherent rights at the time of national needs as exception. There are such rights across the world.
Obstructing this ordinance is unconstitutional instead. It ill behoves the President’s Office to express reservations entering into the intricacies of the ordinance once the Cabinet has sent the ordinance.
When talking about whether the substance of the ordinance is right or not as I already said–if anybody speaks against the Single Transferable Vote system it is considered to be against PR as Single Transferable Vote system is a kind of PR system.
The ordinance, therefore, is constitutional as there is no reason to obstruct it.
Many argue that there must be some amendment while adopting Single Transferable Vote system as it will be difficult to elect three women, one dalit, one differently-abled and three open while electing eight for the National Assembly from each province.
That is also wrong. The persons in the electoral college are merely voters for the National Assembly if you look at the current ordinance. The elected persons will come in accordance to that composition and it will further support representation. It is wrong to argue that Single Transferable Vote system will deny representation of women, dalits, differently-abled persons and indigenous ethnicities. It will help instead.
So, there is no ground for the argument that the ordinance cannot include Single Transferable Vote system as the PR and first-past-the-post (FPTP) are the only electoral systems mentioned in the Constitution?
That is an argument made in ignorance. We have adopted two electoral systems–one is proportional and the next majority–if we look at the current Constitution. What people have failed to understand is that the FPTP system we used to elect 165 lawmakers is just one kind of majority system. Similarly, Single Transferable Vote system is one of the three kinds of PR system.
The Constitution has envisioned Single Transferable Vote system, one of the three kinds of PR systems, for National Assembly. That is the spirit even though the exact words have not been mentioned. Those who are opposing it lack technical knowledge. It may have happened due to lack of knowledge or publicity. Single Transferable Vote system is in accordance to what is written in the Constitution. It is, therefore, not against the Constitution as it is written nowhere in the constitution that National Assembly will be elected through majority system.
The left alliance interpreted the Single Transferable Vote system to be opposite to PR system. That is opposite and wrong interpretation.
There is also dispute about whether a National Assembly is necessary to form the next government or not. What do you have to say?
I don’t see much confusion in that when I look at the Constitution. Article 76(8) clearly states declaration of the final results of House of Representatives (HoR). It states ‘ Procedures on the appointment of the Prime Minister under this Article must be completed no later than thirty five days after the date of declaration of the final results of election to the House of Representatives held under this Constitution or the date on which the office of the Prime Minister has fallen vacant.’
It does not mention National Assembly. It just says HoR.
I again add. Only HoR members can form the government if we look at the three kinds of government to be formed under Article 76 and the provision of Article 76(8). The National Assembly is not necessary in any manner as the 35-day deadline is also only after the day of announcement of final results for HoR.
But there is practical problem before formation of the National Assembly?
The practical question arose as the Election Commission (EC) must arrange vote percentage for PR results. The Constitution requires one-third representation of women in the federal legislature. It is not otherwise if the EC is saying is it needs election of the National Assembly for the practical purpose of determining the number of women, dalits, Madhesis, minorities and other communities it should ask from each party to comply with the Constitution. But to argue that National Assembly is needed to form the government is wrong.
The EC must say that there is no need to wait for the National Assembly to form the new government but it needs results of National Assembly for technical purpose of the announcement of final results of PR system for HoR. If the EC is facing difficulty to announce results it is justified. That should be considered constitutional and practical.
But the parties have resorted to accusations and counter-accusations, and mud-slinging. How can this problem be resolved now?
First, the President should without any delay issue the ordinance sent to the President’s Office as it is. Second, we should also respect the problem currently faced by the EC in announcement of election results after the ordinance is issued. It will wait for some time for formation of the National Assembly, and the National Assembly will be formed once the total numbers of provincial assembly members are submitted.
Third, the new government must be formed within 35 days of the announcement of final results by the EC.
There will be no problem in doing the three works simultaneously. The President can issue the ordinance, and can seek the necessary number of women from the parties for PR system to meet the one-third requirement.
For example, each province must send at least three women to the National Assembly. So, it will be 21 women from seven provinces. Similarly, one of the three to be recommended by the President must also be a woman. A total of six women were elected for HoR through the FPTP system. That means there will be 28 women adding all that. So, the EC can calculate how many more women in addition to the 28 will be needed to meet the one-third provision for the two Houses.
The EC can then announce final results of HoR. The processes of forming the National Assembly and formation of the new government can be carried out side by side.
But the tragedy is the current dispute itself is based on wrong facts and interpretation. Single Transferable Vote system is considered to be against PR system. This is wrong. To argue that the government cannot be formed without National Assembly is also wrong. There is also no constitutional provision for any National Assembly member to remain in the government. The problem can be resolved soon if we become clear in these subjects.
There is also another dispute. Some say the government should be formed first and the first meeting of HoR can be convened only after the prime minister takes oath of office while others argue that meeting of the federal legislatures must be convened first and the government can be formed only after that. What do you have to say for that?
One cannot become a PM from the street before the HoR meeting is convened. That argument is baseless. It is non-political.
For example, the elected persons will not be lawmakers before they take oath of office. Their current status is just that of elected candidate.
The Constitution does not envision anyone becoming a lawmaker before the HoR convenes and the elected candidates take oath of office.
To say from outside the parliament that we have got a majority, the two parties can form a government and the President should invite us for formation of the government is unconstitutional and non-political.
Another thing is we must be clear about meeting of which House is to be convened. Convening of just HoR will be sufficient to form a new government. Oath of office will be constitutional. There is no need to wait for federal parliament also including the National Assembly. Joint meeting of the federal parliament can be convened later and the President can address it as it suits the President.
